I originally blogged this a day ago. But my blog somehow got messed up and didn’t save this, so I’m rather re-writing this from scratch.
I read a few days ago that the George W Bush Library Foundation lost their domain name GeorgeWBushLibrary.com. They eventually got it back, but they paid quite a high price.
I first got wind of it via the DallasNews. You can read the story here.
The story goes the Foundation’s contracted web firm, Yuma Solutions, was the one who let it drop. I really wonder how or why they let that happen, given they had plenty of time to renew or even redeem it without losing it to anyone.
The domain name was eventually picked up by another web firm called Illuminati Karate at the regular .com registration price. Quite a name.
But the more surprising bit is Illuminati Karate actually sold it back to the Foundation at $35,000! They sure got an early Christmas bonus for themselves.
Sure enough, it got picked up in a variety of places:
http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/15/dear-press-i-am-a-cybersquatter/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/11/fast-fingered-domain-squatters-flip-bush-library-url-for-35k/
No doubt lots of people hated what Illuminati Karate did, to the point of even labelling them squatters. I can certainly understand some folks’ sentiment about it, although I disagree.
If we go by what, say, Wikipedia defines squatting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting
Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use.
Well, I wonder how exactly Illuminati Karate exactly “squatted” on that domain name since the Foundation’s web firm let it lapse. Unless we seek to redefine it, maybe?
On the side, the Bush Foundation could’ve filed a dispute. They could open a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) claim or even file under the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) itself.
Only catch with the two actions above is the foundation needs to demonstrate trademark rights somehow. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, only an intellectual property lawyer can say for sure.
Generally speaking (and any lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong), politicians don’t necessarily have trademark rights to their names if especially serving public office. Unless they use their names to make money like, say, Hillary Clinton when she wrote and sold books.
In any case, I’d say Illuminati Karate got lucky with this one. And rather shame on Yuma Solutions for having let this one happen.
As for the rest of us, I’d say stay on top of your domain names and keep them consistently renewed. Don’t let this happen to you.
Popularity: 33% [?]
I do find it unfortunate that “squatting” has taken on this new meaning. It is an inaccurate use of language. We all know what “cybersquatting” is, but you are right… it really should have been given a more accurate name. We’re now stuck with it, to the detriment of the language.